Tag Archives: dme treatment protocols

Post navigation

The Medicare height requirement for AFOs that became effective January 1, 2013 has been removed. Billing of prefabricated and custom gauntlets and AFOs remains, as it was, last year.

Some AFOs were unaffected by the January 1 change, some devices were affected but are now not impacted and other AFOs are still subject by earlier policy changes.

The following is a summary of where things stand in February 2013. DPMs are reminded to include in their documentation the rationale for prescribing the specific device to be supplied/dispensed. As always, the final and sole responsibility for correct coding, within established laws, rules and standards of practice, rests upon the party submitting the claim.

L1902, “AFO ankle gauntlet, prefabricated”

Not required to have PDAC verification nor need extend as high as to near the fibular head.
The 2013 fee schedule ranges, depending on the state, from $69 to $92.

Examples, recommended by the manufacturers and by SafeStep to be billed as such include:

Ossur

Gameday, Exoform

Aircast

A60

Darco

Web, Sport, Pro

Medspec

ASO

SafeStep DME

Multiligamentous Sport

L1906, “AFO multiligamentous ankle, prefabricated”

Since 7/1/2012, are the only AFO required to have, active PDAC verification and are defined to have “a hinged ankle and a rigid stirrup and foot plate which provides functional tracking of the ankle with hind-foot and mid-foot stability during ambulation.”.

The 2013 fee schedule ranges, depending on the state, from $104 to $241.

Examples of such devices with active PDAC verification include:

Darco

Body Armor Vario

Medspec

EVO Hinge

Swede-O

Arch Lok, Atom, Dorsi-Assist

United Surgical

Trailblazer Hinged Ankle

Ossur

Rebound

DPMs are advised to consult the PDAC website, www.dmepdac.com to ensure that PDAC verification is present and active. There are products that have design features to qualify as L1906 but have not had PDAC revalidation, as required, subsequent to last year’s Policy change. The above list is as of 2/7/2013 and is subject to change. For a complete list of L1906 devices with effective L1906 verification click:

PDAC verification not required.
The 2013 fee schedule for such devices ranges, depending on the state, from $512 to $564.

L1930, “AFO plastic or other material, prefabricated”

No longer required to extend as high as the just below the fibular head.
PDAC verification not required.
The 2013 fee schedule for such devices, depending on the state, range from $170 to $326.

Examples recommended by the manufacturers and by SafeStep to be billed as such include:

FLA

Orthopedics Foot Drop Splint

Ossur
Ossur
FLA

AFO Light
AFO Leaf Spring
Foot Drop Splint

L1951, “AFO, spiral plastic or other material, prefabricated”

No longer required to extend to just below the fibular head.
PDAC verification not required.
The 2013 fee schedule for such devices ranges, depending on the state, from $765 to $841.

Example recommended by the manufacturer and by SafeStep to be billed as such:

Eurointernational Perosupport (formerly Peromax)

L1971, “AFO with ankle joint, prefabricated”

PDAC verification is not required. No longer required to extend to just below the fibular head.
The 2013 fee schedule ranges, depending on the state, ranges from $427 to $469.

Examples recommended by the manufacturers and by SafeStep to be billed as such include:

Ossur

Rebound

DJO

Velocity

Swede-O

SureStep

Bledsoe

Axiom

L2340, “pre-tibial shell, molded to patient model”

According to the January 2013 Policy Article, “a pre-tibial shell, custom fabricated, provides a rigid overlapping interlocking anterior tibial control between the tibial tuberosity to a point no greater than 3 inches proximal to the medial malleolus. The pre-tibial shell can be constructed from thermosetting materials, thermoplastics, or composite type materials.”

PDAC verification not required.
The 2013 fee schedule, depending on the state, ranges from $390 to $582.

L4350, “ankle control orthosis, stirrup style, rigid”

PDAC verification is not required. Unaffected by the recent Policy Article.
The 2013 fee schedule ranges, depending on the state, from $78 to $147.

Examples recommended by the manufacturers and by SafeStep to be billed as such include:

Ossur

Formfit, Airform Universal

Aircast

Airlift PTTD, Airsport, Air Stirrup

SafeStep DME

Air Stirrup, Foam Stirrup

Swede-O

Versi-Splint

L4361, “AFO walking boot type, varus / valgus correction (CROW)”

Defined by LCD revision of 1/1/2011.
The 2013 fee schedule ranges, depending on the state, from $1400 to $1931.

L4386, “Walking boot, non-pneumatic”

Unaffected by the recent Policy Article.
The 2013 fee schedule for such devices ranges, depending on the state, from $144 to $158.

(Plantar fascia night splints)
Must as of 1/1/10 have adjustability. Many dorsal night splints commonly billed using this code lack “adjustably for fit” and so do not qualify for Medicare reimbursement. This item is an exception in that while others AFOs need be for ambulation, L4396 needs not when used for treatment of plantar fasciitis (728.71) or as part of a treatment plan for plantar flexion contracture of 10 degrees or greater (718.47).

The 2013 fee schedule ranges, depending on the state, from $150 to $183.

Arizona-type AFO / Moore Balance Brace

PDAC verification and an Advisory Article remain in place for Arizona AFO type custom gauntlets. According to PDAC, Arizona Short and Arizona Tall, or similar custom fabricated braces (including the Moore Balance Brace), only the following codes should be used:

The 2013 fee schedule ranges, depending on the state, from $902 to $1484.

Thermoplastic hinged articulated AFO

Devices that meet the description as L1970, “AFO, plastic with ankle joint, custom fabricated” are no longer required extend to within 4 cm of the fibular head. When they include a soft interface, code L2820 can also be billed.

The 2013 fee schedule for such devices ranges, depending on the state, from $621 to $929.

SafeStep presents a free live webinar on DME Treatment Protocols that includes all the latest coding and compliance issues. To see the schedule and to register, CLICK HERE.

Your comments are welcome and appreciated. Updates relating to this and other coding, billing and compliance issues will be posted on the SafeStep blog, www.safestepblog.net.

Having established treatment protocols for common conditions one sees in practice can go a long way toward reining in costs and maximizing efficiency. In this 7 part series, I will offer insights on the benefits of these protocols and how to incorporate durable medical equipment (DME) into the equation.

A key impetus for reining in health care costs is based on the understanding that 50 percent of these costs go toward unnecessary administrative costs, excessive or unnecessary tests and other waste.

Increasingly, large healthcare delivery systems are racing to reorganize their approaches to care as part of their ongoing efforts to rein in costs. Change can be difficult even when the benefits are obvious and the required actions are not complicated. For example, a tremendous amount of infection is still the result of health care professionals not employing well-documented hand washing procedures.

Integral to this reform effort is the creation of practice protocols. An example of integrating practice protocols on a large scale comes from Intermountain Healthcare, which serves patients in Idaho and Utah.1 It determined that 90 percent of its caseload involves the treatment of 70 different conditions. For the majority of these conditions, Intermountain settled on established treatment approaches supported by robust scientific evidence.

Intermountain officials understood that the recommended standardized approach is usually appropriate when patients present with one of the 70 conditions though the standardized approach does not apply in every instance.1 Such an approach allows for more consistent delivery of care, more predictable outcomes, better defense in the event of medical malpractice accusation, more consistent billing practices and more accurate documentation.

Four Pertinent Principles In Streamlining Health Care Delivery

Podiatrists can learn from Intermountain’s efforts to streamline its approach to care by adopting four key principles.

1. Manage the care. Select the most common conditions and settle on a treatment approach. The successful adaptation of treatment protocols requires acceptance by all members of the service chain. Applying evidence to practice requires standardization not just of operational routines but of the rules for making clinical decisions. The more detailed the descriptions in a series of tasks, the less decision making along the path and the more predicable the actions and the outcome. One must identify and address every symptom, observations and lab result.

2. Corral variability. Create mechanisms for addressing instances when the standardized approach is not appropriate or not successful. There are instances in which the presenting conditions are complicated, poorly understood and do not fit into expected protocols.

It is essential that practitioners have a way of addressing such instances and not continue in a way that is not predictable. Such an approach may entail alternative protocols, further testing or referral to an expert in the field. It is important to examine the incidence and reasons for conditions that fall outside of established protocols.

3. Reorganize resources. When practices redesign clinical protocols, they must also reconfigure the supporting infrastructure and routines. There must be a match of the staff, incentive systems, information technology (IT) systems, physical layout of the clinic and educational materials, all with the redesigned process in mind. When a practice does not adopt such a unified approach, podiatrists continue to perform work that they could delegate to medical assistants. Performance measures then remain focused on factors not critical to achieving desired outcomes.

It is essential that medical staff members receive training and stay up to date with educational materials and tools for each protocol. As the saying goes, “If you cannot measure it, you cannot manage it.” There must be mechanisms in place to determine if the staff is performing the desired procedures and mechanisms should be in place to ensure that this is the case. Determine the time, personnel and materials necessary for each approach.

4. Learn from everyday care. Continually monitor the results of the practice’s approach and integrate the lessons learned from cases when the standardized approach is not successful.

The structure and processes of the clinic must allow learning from the everyday work. The people designing the practice protocols must learn from every member performing the various tasks. The people designing the protocols must understand the demands for every service as well as how one performs the task. Such an approach will enable allocation of resources to best meet expected demand. Office managers should do ongoing reviews of charts to ensure that the practice is following treatment protocols and documentation is in order.